Let’s see a video series, of some of the guys that go to Colorado to train. Follow them around, show us what they eat, how much sleep - give us some shots of training with the experienced staff there. I want to see more than the hype, just a guy trying to get leaner from Anytown USA that isn’t a newbie but isn’t a pro either.
I’m in as well, so whatever you guys want me to do, I’ll do… measurements, bodyweight, pics, etc etc. I am at your command.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I’m in as well, so whatever you guys want me to do, I’ll do… I am at your command.[/quote]
please forward your next package from Biotest directly to me. I’ll PM you my address
kthanx 
[quote]Jibster wrote:
I would like to see some more ‘normal’ folks who train well and have real lives get a chance to be the (and future) test subjects too. Saying your product made a world class athlete improve is like saying your golf ball made Tiger hit it 10 yards further. Great, except that doesn’t always work for the regular schmoe trying to play the same ball. [/quote]
Getting measurable improvements out of elite and well trained athletes is much harder than getting the same out of average shmoes. The elite guys have done everything possible to get the easy gains in performance and have to work with much greater focus, intensity, and consistency to get improvements of at best a few percent here or there. On the other hand the average Joe can get far more through relatively straight forward improvements in their programs combined with greater consistency.
An odd thing about 11-T is that, besides the fundamental point of manufacturing difficulties which stopped the product, its main problem was being underpriced. Not overpriced.
I don’t of course mean that it would have been better if the raw material had cost more. By no means. It would have been better had the raw material cost less. Way better.
But because of the very high cost of the raw material, the dosing was set to meet the “nearly-reasonable” price of $110.
If we had not had a perceived price ceiling, 11-T would have had a maximum recommended dosing nearly 3 times higher.
11-ketotestosterone actually activates the androgen receptor even moreso than does testosterone for any given level of free hormone, a fact we did not bring out at the time because of wanting to stay under the radar. Instead it was positioned as helping retain LBM and losing fat when dieting, which it did despite the modest dose. As with the case with compounds activating the androgen receptor in general, there can be benefits to modest dose as well as to aggressive doses. Just not nearly as much, obviously.
At 3x the dose, I think you would have been counting 11-T as a truly standout product rather than a “flop.”
But we did not think people would pay an amount such as $330. So dosing was set to have the effect that we described at a price that we hoped was still attainable for people.
In the case of Indigo-3G, the dosing is not being held low for the sake of meeting a perceived (and no doubt real!) price resistance.
If there were an “11-T mistake” being made with Indigo-3G, the mistake wouldn’t be the high price, but rather a lowering of dosage to try to keep the price reasonable. That mistake was not made.
OKay, I wasn’t sure if I should mention it in my contest thread or here, but what the hell,… I’m in with the first round. It will certainly be an interesting addition to my contest prep. There will be 5 weeks between shows, so not counting the last week when I carb deplete, I could have up to four weeks of upping my carbs with the Indigo-3G and (hopefully!) getting leaner to boot. Even after the second show, it will be very interesting to see if there is any added effect to the post contest rebound, especially considering I will have to keep my weight under control through the summer if I plan to jump onstage again in the Fall.
S
Wonder who this NFL player is Shugs mentioned in the LiveSpill that is part of the 1st batch and will invited to CO? Lord knows Albert Haynesworth could use it lol
Jared called me today to get in on the first batch. I had to decline for financial reasons 
Pretty sad, everything is pretty dialed in right now and I would have loved the opportunity.
The good news is there are lots of enthusiastic members of this board who are going to use it and keep logs. I’m excited for you guys.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
An odd thing about 11-T is that, besides the fundamental point of manufacturing difficulties which stopped the product, its main problem was being underpriced. Not overpriced.
I don’t of course mean that it would have been better if the raw material had cost more. By no means. It would have been better had the raw material cost less. Way better.
But because of the very high cost of the raw material, the dosing was set to meet the “nearly-reasonable” price of $110.
If we had not had a perceived price ceiling, 11-T would have had a maximum recommended dosing nearly 3 times higher.
11-ketotestosterone actually activates the androgen receptor even moreso than does testosterone for any given level of free hormone, a fact we did not bring out at the time because of wanting to stay under the radar. Instead it was positioned as helping retain LBM and losing fat when dieting, which it did despite the modest dose. As with the case with compounds activating the androgen receptor in general, there can be benefits to modest dose as well as to aggressive doses. Just not nearly as much, obviously.
At 3x the dose, I think you would have been counting 11-T as a truly standout product rather than a “flop.”
But we did not think people would pay an amount such as $330. So dosing was set to have the effect that we described at a price that we hoped was still attainable for people.
In the case of Indigo-3G, the dosing is not being held low for the sake of meeting a perceived (and no doubt real!) price resistance.
If there were an “11-T mistake” being made with Indigo-3G, the mistake wouldn’t be the high price, but rather a lowering of dosage to try to keep the price reasonable. That mistake was not made.[/quote]
I remember reading about some backlash at the $110 price. Was it the result of the LiveSpills and more direct communication with customers that led you to believe this perceived price ceiling didn’t really exist? Or the success of ANACONDA? I’m curious as to how that perception shifted.
[quote]SureShot wrote:
Wonder who this NFL player is Shugs mentioned in the LiveSpill that is part of the 1st batch and will invited to CO? Lord knows Albert Haynesworth could use it lol[/quote]
I think he said former NFL pro, which would be Synergy93, former 49er.
Silly laymen.
<— the fucking oracle.
Again, if we’re talking about altering P-Ratio which should only happen (to my knowledge) when you get leaner, then I would hope some folks using the supp are at a body fat % that would result in less than ideal P-Ratio.
Bill Roberts,
You are right about dosing and pricing, but that is unfortunately marketing psychology. There’s a limit to how much you can push “value” on the consumer, unfortunately, because at some point the context you wish to frame the value in (i.e. “this would typically cost X dollars!”) falls apart, and the context of “overall cost to me” becomes the deciding factor. i.e., “well, this cost me $600 this month and that’s half my rent…”
And when I say limit, I don’t mean it’s a black and white thing, that everyone will buy or nobody will buy, I mean a bell curve with fewer and fewer people being “sold” on the “value” aspect, except for the truly die hard. That’s the same with pretty much any product/service in any industry. And bell curves immediately conjure up “diminishing returns” calculations when we’re talking about a business (Biotest).
I hope it works out for everyone. I’m not even skeptical, just hope to see a range of “test subjects” and not just people who are already 10% or lower: they wouldn’t exactly highlight the selling point of the product.
PonceDeLeon,
Would you consider the ANACONDA and the MAG-10 36-hour pulse protocols supplements or marketing failures or both? I think no matter how great something is there will be people who pick it apart. Indigo-3G could be the next huge thing but there will be those who will search for whatever negativity they can find in it. Heck, it’s already started on other forums/blogs. I’d say 80% is ridicule/skepticism.
[quote]catalyst wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
An odd thing about 11-T is that, besides the fundamental point of manufacturing difficulties which stopped the product, its main problem was being underpriced. Not overpriced.
I don’t of course mean that it would have been better if the raw material had cost more. By no means. It would have been better had the raw material cost less. Way better.
But because of the very high cost of the raw material, the dosing was set to meet the “nearly-reasonable” price of $110.
If we had not had a perceived price ceiling, 11-T would have had a maximum recommended dosing nearly 3 times higher.
11-ketotestosterone actually activates the androgen receptor even moreso than does testosterone for any given level of free hormone, a fact we did not bring out at the time because of wanting to stay under the radar. Instead it was positioned as helping retain LBM and losing fat when dieting, which it did despite the modest dose. As with the case with compounds activating the androgen receptor in general, there can be benefits to modest dose as well as to aggressive doses. Just not nearly as much, obviously.
At 3x the dose, I think you would have been counting 11-T as a truly standout product rather than a “flop.”
But we did not think people would pay an amount such as $330. So dosing was set to have the effect that we described at a price that we hoped was still attainable for people.
In the case of Indigo-3G, the dosing is not being held low for the sake of meeting a perceived (and no doubt real!) price resistance.
If there were an “11-T mistake” being made with Indigo-3G, the mistake wouldn’t be the high price, but rather a lowering of dosage to try to keep the price reasonable. That mistake was not made.[/quote]
I remember reading about some backlash at the $110 price. Was it the result of the LiveSpills and more direct communication with customers that led you to believe this perceived price ceiling didn’t really exist? Or the success of ANACONDA? I’m curious as to how that perception shifted.
[/quote]
I wonder if part if it is the lack of industry wide blockbuster supplements over the past few years. Back in the early days of Biotest there were several quite powerful prohormones on the market made by Biotest and its competitors. While some of them were moderately expensive, the cost/benefit ratio of the best prohormones probably would have made something considerably more expensive (like Ingido-3G or even the 11-T) pretty much a non-starter. Now with the (relatively) cheap and effective prohormones out of the picture, there really aren’t that many (if any) cheap and truly efficacious competitors out there of the legal variety. In this market anything that works really well can find a niche almost regardless of price.
[quote]etaco wrote:
[quote]catalyst wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
An odd thing about 11-T is that, besides the fundamental point of manufacturing difficulties which stopped the product, its main problem was being underpriced. Not overpriced.
I don’t of course mean that it would have been better if the raw material had cost more. By no means. It would have been better had the raw material cost less. Way better.
But because of the very high cost of the raw material, the dosing was set to meet the “nearly-reasonable” price of $110.
If we had not had a perceived price ceiling, 11-T would have had a maximum recommended dosing nearly 3 times higher.
11-ketotestosterone actually activates the androgen receptor even moreso than does testosterone for any given level of free hormone, a fact we did not bring out at the time because of wanting to stay under the radar. Instead it was positioned as helping retain LBM and losing fat when dieting, which it did despite the modest dose. As with the case with compounds activating the androgen receptor in general, there can be benefits to modest dose as well as to aggressive doses. Just not nearly as much, obviously.
At 3x the dose, I think you would have been counting 11-T as a truly standout product rather than a “flop.”
But we did not think people would pay an amount such as $330. So dosing was set to have the effect that we described at a price that we hoped was still attainable for people.
In the case of Indigo-3G, the dosing is not being held low for the sake of meeting a perceived (and no doubt real!) price resistance.
If there were an “11-T mistake” being made with Indigo-3G, the mistake wouldn’t be the high price, but rather a lowering of dosage to try to keep the price reasonable. That mistake was not made.[/quote]
I remember reading about some backlash at the $110 price. Was it the result of the LiveSpills and more direct communication with customers that led you to believe this perceived price ceiling didn’t really exist? Or the success of ANACONDA? I’m curious as to how that perception shifted.
[/quote]
I wonder if part if it is the lack of industry wide blockbuster supplements over the past few years. Back in the early days of Biotest there were several quite powerful prohormones on the market made by Biotest and its competitors. While some of them were moderately expensive, the cost/benefit ratio of the best prohormones probably would have made something considerably more expensive (like Ingido-3G or even the 11-T) pretty much a non-starter. Now with the (relatively) cheap and effective prohormones out of the picture, there really aren’t that many (if any) cheap and truly efficacious competitors out there of the legal variety. In this market anything that works really well can find a niche almost regardless of price.[/quote]
I remember when EAS’ Betagen and HMB first came out. Betagen was easily $100 for a month supply and HMB powder was I believe $60-$70. Heck, even creatine was “expensive” when it first came out compared to the dirt cheap prices of today.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
OKay, I wasn’t sure if I should mention it in my contest thread or here, but what the hell,… I’m in with the first round. It will certainly be an interesting addition to my contest prep. There will be 5 weeks between shows, so not counting the last week when I carb deplete, I could have up to four weeks of upping my carbs with the Indigo-3G and (hopefully!) getting leaner to boot. Even after the second show, it will be very interesting to see if there is any added effect to the post contest rebound, especially considering I will have to keep my weight under control through the summer if I plan to jump onstage again in the Fall.
S[/quote]
I honestly can’t believe you are going to add this to your prep Stu, seems like you wouldn’t want to mess around with what you know works… You and a few others are the people I’m looking to for quality reviews of this stuff, but it should be very interesting if you decide to go that route. Especially since you still keep a fairly good amount of carbs in your contest preps.
Having said that, if you could manage to add 5 pounds of muscle and come in crazy shredded (Legs sliced and diced) that would speak wonders for the efficacy.
One of the many reasons why I’m looking to guys like you and Synergy to get on the stuff.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I’d like to see it in action but I also hope they don’t choose the leanest people on this site to train at CO. I want to see it work on a “true” 15% or even 18% trainee.[/quote]
I’m actually the other way: I’m most curious about this supp’s effect on those who are already lean, and without any real issues re: insulin sensitivity.
Of course the majority of consumers are in that 15-20%+ range and I agree with etaco about how Biotest is smartly handling this initial release; but I’ll be paying close attention to the detailed feedback from guys like Stu, New Damage and buff_samarai.
OMG if Synergy is going to the Biotest HQ… well, I really really want to go! The dude’s posts have helped me so much.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I’m in as well, so whatever you guys want me to do, I’ll do… I am at your command.[/quote]
please forward your next package from Biotest directly to me. I’ll PM you my address
kthanx :)[/quote]
OK give me your address.
I’ll send you a piece of my poop.
moohahahaha.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I’d like to see it in action but I also hope they don’t choose the leanest people on this site to train at CO. I want to see it work on a “true” 15% or even 18% trainee.[/quote]
I’m actually the other way: I’m most curious about this supp’s effect on those who are already lean, and without any real issues re: insulin sensitivity.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you want to test a product’s biggest claim and give it a true challenge?
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
OMG if Synergy is going to the Biotest HQ… well, I really really want to go! The dude’s posts have helped me so much.[/quote]
X2
As if getting to meet CT and the rest of the guys wasn’t enough haha. Synergy is a BEAST! I love his thread
Yeah you’re right Ponce, the results and feedback from “the masses” is at least as compelling.
I posted before seeing Lonnie’s post from the previous page, and I think he covered it all nicely:
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
There really is going to be 2 interesting parts here:
1 - The first wave of people who get the supplement (I’m only interested in a few of them who know enough to isolate the variables, who have been training for 5+ years, and who will ONLY add this supplement in and maybe some extra carbs) - Its going to be interesting to see their results in the first 40 days.
2 - Then comes the “real” test for this supplement. They claim that it “fixes” the body so that it sends nutrients to muscle instead of fat. Well, after the people run out and then are forced to go at it without the supp, we shall see how that idea pans out as well. This to me is actually more interesting.
If the supplement does in fact have long lasting effects (which we wont know from the people who get it for months) than I believe the high price tag could be justified.
[/quote]